Ring Mag: 10 Greatest Living Fighters

First topic message reminder :

Ring Mag came up with a new list:

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/431305-living-legends-who-is-the-greatest-fighter-alive

10. Larry Holmes
9. Manny Pacquiao
8. Jake LaMotta
7. Floyd Mayweather
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Marvin Hagler
4. Evander Holyfield
3. Pernell Whitaker

They haven't published 1 and 2 yet - any ideas?

Ray Leonard and Duran?

I personally wouldn't have Chavez above Mayweather; I think that a boxers ability to still excel past their physical peak adds to their legacy and sets them apart from the rest.

hazharrison wrote:Duran should be number one and there's no way I could imagine ranking Jofre over Marvin Hagler or Chavez.

I'd say that looking at the list, they've placed a large emphasis on big wins (perhaps why Leonard made top spot). That would help explain Holyfield and LaMotta.

I'd go:

1. Duran 2. Leonard 3. Whitaker 4. Hagler 5. Chavez 6. Mayweather 7. Jones 8. Pacquiao 9. Holyfield 10. Foreman

Will admit that I do wobble on where to place Jofre, Haz. No doubt he was an underappreciated gem during his career and I was certainly swayed to a some degree or other by the captain’s and Windy’s championing on him back in the day, to the point where I, like many others in fairness for entirely their own reasons, used to have him on the cusp of my pound for pound top ten.

Realised a few years ago that I couldn’t in all good conscience place him that high using my own criteria. He wasn’t robbed against Harada on either occasion, and while he was probably a shade past his absolute best by that stage, it wasn’t by enough of a degree to make those defeats an irrelevance or fully mitigate for them, which I think you’d have to do if you wanted to make him a top tenner. Harada was clearly the best man he fought at 118, too, so it’s not like there’s any evidence of the Japanese just being an unlikely bogeyman for him or of those losses being a freak occurrence.

On t’other side of the coin, he is still, for me at least, the all-time number one in one of the original weight classes and added an improbable title at the next weight class up after a four-year layoff and at an age considered pretty damn old for a 126-pounder even now, never mind then. Those two Harada losses ended up being the only defeats in a pretty special career which is a testament to his consistency. He also had a rare level of dominance as Bantamweight champion in the sense that his victories tended to be chasm-wide in their nature.

Given too much credit by those who put him top ten from my personal point of view, but I probably couldn’t have him lower than 25, either. Flittering in and around those spots he’s in the wash with the Spinks and Chavez types – I had him marginally ahead today, but ask me tomorrow and it’d probably be different.

Rowley wrote:Using bolt currently had the world 100 metre record at 9.85 seconds I believe. If I get on a motorbike and go it in 8 can I claim the record and the title of fastest man in the world or will folk tell me to sod off and give me no praise as I cheated. Toney did nothing. He cheated.

Diminish Jones' achievement all you wish, two fighters in 120 years remains a fact.

Jones didn't win the heavyweight championship - he won nothing more than a paper title. In essence, he beat a top ten heavyweight. Other middleweights have achieved the same.

I never argued he won the heavyweight championship. I argued he won a heavyweight title belt, and as such he remains one of only two former middleweight titlists who can make said claim. Even if we allow for the fact it was a damned sight harder to do in the one belt era, an argument I'd agree with by the way, the fact remains the multi belt era was around before Jones did it and shows no sign of ending any time soon. When countless other middleweight titlists start replicating the feat I'll agree it loses its lustre.

Rowley wrote:I never argued he won the heavyweight championship. I argued he won a heavyweight title belt, and as such he remains one of only two former middleweight titlists who can make said claim. Even if we allow for the fact it was a damned sight harder to do in the one belt era, an argument I'd agree with by the way, the fact remains the multi belt era was around before Jones did it and shows no sign of ending any time soon. When countless other middleweight titlists start replicating the feat I'll agree it loses its lustre.

There are two Middleweight champions in the top ten of the original list and neither of them had any success above Middleweight, absolutely none.

Sugar Ray Leonard is number 1.  

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/432057-who-is-the-greatest-fighter-alive-no-1-revealed

Typical of Ray Leonard though. Wait until Ali has died then sneak in to claim top spot.

The Jones feat is overrated for me. It was a piece of opportunism afforded by having a really weak paper champion and a boxer that was really a light heavyweight who benefited from modern weigh in regulations to make middleweight early in his career. Quite a few good light heavyweights would be capable of stepping up beating an ordinary heavyweight like Ruiz. Even some solid light heavyweights in recent years like Tomas Adamek have made the move up and made a fist of being a capable heavyweight.

I would say the reason it hasnt happened since Jones (if Fat Toney is discounted) is that the light heavyweight division has been crap in recent years prior to Ward moving up and Kovalev emerging. Even then, I would have given someone like Dawson a shot of stepping up and outboxing a plodder like Ruiz. Ward has recently come out and said he wants to emulate Jones by having a heavyweight fight although with the caveat that like Jones, it would have to be the right sort of heavyweight. I would guess a lot of the better light heavies would rather remain a top contender or champion in the light heavyweight division than pile on weight just to become a fringe heavyweight contender.

Still does not change the fact that he is a former middleweight. In much the same as the multi belt era Jones benefitted from still exists so do the modern weigh in regulations you refer to. As such for his feat to be replicated it needs to be done by a middleweight holder.

catchweight wrote:The Jones feat is overrated for me. It was a piece of opportunism afforded by having a really weak paper champion and a boxer that was really a light heavyweight who benefited from modern weigh in regulations to make middleweight early in his career. Quite a few good light heavyweights would be capable of stepping up beating an ordinary heavyweight like Ruiz. Even some solid light heavyweights in recent years like Tomas Adamek have made the move up and made a fist of being a capable heavyweight.

Yet only Jones Jnr has actually done it and since then only Adamek has won titles at 175lbs and 200lbs, probably not quite as easy a feat as you're making out.

Rowley wrote:I never argued he won the heavyweight championship. I argued he won a heavyweight title belt, and as such he remains one of only two former middleweight titlists who can make said claim. Even if we allow for the fact it was a damned sight harder to do in the one belt era, an argument I'd agree with by the way, the fact remains the multi belt era was around before Jones did it and shows no sign of ending any time soon. When countless other middleweight titlists start replicating the feat I'll agree it loses its lustre.

Maybe if Mike Spinks had the luxury of day before weigh ins, IVs and god knows what else to help dehydrate and rehydrate in 30 hours when he started his career, doubtless he could have started out at 160, bulked up to his natural weight of 175 to fight and still knocked off Holmes at heavyweight. Different game.

So in the era of day before weigh ins and fractured paper titles, we're talking Jones and Toney since the mid-80s. One popped for a PED earlier in his career, the other after moving to heavyweight. Both beat a smallish, average heavyweight.

If Lewis hadn't been (unfairly) stripped of his belt, Jones would not have made the jump. That's possibly the reason it hasn't been replicated during the Klitschko era. If Ruiz had been around recently, I could quite easily imagine the likes of Hopkins and Ward fancying their chances.

I believe the expression is along the lines of if my aunty had balls.

catchweight wrote:The Jones feat is overrated for me. It was a piece of opportunism afforded by having a really weak paper champion and a boxer that was really a light heavyweight who benefited from modern weigh in regulations to make middleweight early in his career. Quite a few good light heavyweights would be capable of stepping up beating an ordinary heavyweight like Ruiz. Even some solid light heavyweights in recent years like Tomas Adamek have made the move up and made a fist of being a capable heavyweight.

I would say the reason it hasnt happened since Jones (if Fat Toney is discounted) is that the light heavyweight division has been crap in recent years prior to Ward moving up and Kovalev emerging. Even then, I would have given someone like Dawson a shot of stepping up and outboxing a plodder like Ruiz. Ward has recently come out and said he wants to emulate Jones by having a heavyweight fight although with the caveat that like Jones, it would have to be the right sort of heavyweight. I would guess a lot of the better light heavies would rather remain a top contender or champion in the light heavyweight division than pile on weight just to become a fringe heavyweight contender.

Good point.

Rowley wrote:Still does not change the fact that he is a former middleweight. In much the same as the multi belt era Jones benefitted from still exists so do the modern weigh in regulations you refer to. As such for his feat to be replicated it needs to be done by a middleweight holder.

When the next John Ruiz emerges - I fancy it will!

The Klitschkos, Fury and Joshua are just too big.

catchweight wrote:The Jones feat is overrated for me. It was a piece of opportunism afforded by having a really weak paper champion and a boxer that was really a light heavyweight who benefited from modern weigh in regulations to make middleweight early in his career. Quite a few good light heavyweights would be capable of stepping up beating an ordinary heavyweight like Ruiz. Even some solid light heavyweights in recent years like Tomas Adamek have made the move up and made a fist of being a capable heavyweight.

I would say the reason it hasnt happened since Jones (if Fat Toney is discounted) is that the light heavyweight division has been crap in recent years prior to Ward moving up and Kovalev emerging. Even then, I would have given someone like Dawson a shot of stepping up and outboxing a plodder like Ruiz. Ward has recently come out and said he wants to emulate Jones by having a heavyweight fight although with the caveat that like Jones, it would have to be the right sort of heavyweight. I would guess a lot of the better light heavies would rather remain a top contender or champion in the light heavyweight division than pile on weight just to become a fringe heavyweight contender.

Bloody hell lad - was just typing the same thing!

hazharrison wrote:

Rowley wrote:Still does not change the fact that he is a former middleweight. In much the same as the multi belt era Jones benefitted from still exists so do the modern weigh in regulations you refer to. As such for his feat to be replicated it needs to be done by a middleweight holder.

When the next John Ruiz emerges - I fancy it will!

The Klitschkos, Fury and Joshua are just too big.

And as I have said countless times when it gets replicated numerous times I'll downgrade the achievement accordingly. But let's not kid ourselves, post Ruiz there have been countless awful heavies who have had claims, however tenuous, to heavyweight titles and no former middles have even tried.

Since the WBO started we've had Chagaev, Liakovich, Rahman, Ibragimov, Maskaev, Byrd, Hide, Akinwande and Bentt all holding world titles at Heavyweight, none of them have lost their titles to a Light Heavyweight let alone a Middleweight.

Rowley wrote:Still does not change the fact that he is a former middleweight. In much the same as the multi belt era Jones benefitted from still exists so do the modern weigh in regulations you refer to. As such for his feat to be replicated it needs to be done by a middleweight holder.

It desnt change the fact he was a former middleweight title holder, it just explores it in a bit more detail. The feat sounds better and looks better on paper then when you examine it in more detail for my money. There are quite a few natural light heavyweights that wouldnt need to be great to beat a heavyweight like Ruiz (which is really what the meat of the acheivement is without all the garnish of alphabet titles and boiling down in weight).

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Duran should be number one and there's no way I could imagine ranking Jofre over Marvin Hagler or Chavez.

I'd say that looking at the list, they've placed a large emphasis on big wins (perhaps why Leonard made top spot). That would help explain Holyfield and LaMotta.

I'd go:

1. Duran 2. Leonard 3. Whitaker 4. Hagler 5. Chavez 6. Mayweather 7. Jones 8. Pacquiao 9. Holyfield 10. Foreman

Will admit that I do wobble on where to place Jofre, Haz. No doubt he was an underappreciated gem during his career and I was certainly swayed to a some degree or other by the captain’s and Windy’s championing on him back in the day, to the point where I, like many others in fairness for entirely their own reasons, used to have him on the cusp of my pound for pound top ten.

Realised a few years ago that I couldn’t in all good conscience place him that high using my own criteria. He wasn’t robbed against Harada on either occasion, and while he was probably a shade past his absolute best by that stage, it wasn’t by enough of a degree to make those defeats an irrelevance or fully mitigate for them, which I think you’d have to do if you wanted to make him a top tenner. Harada was clearly the best man he fought at 118, too, so it’s not like there’s any evidence of the Japanese just being an unlikely bogeyman for him or of those losses being a freak occurrence.

On t’other side of the coin, he is still, for me at least, the all-time number one in one of the original weight classes and added an improbable title at the next weight class up after a four-year layoff and at an age considered pretty damn old for a 126-pounder even now, never mind then. Those two Harada losses ended up being the only defeats in a pretty special career which is a testament to his consistency. He also had a rare level of dominance as Bantamweight champion in the sense that his victories tended to be chasm-wide in their nature.

Given too much credit by those who put him top ten from my personal point of view, but I probably couldn’t have him lower than 25, either. Flittering in and around those spots he’s in the wash with the Spinks and Chavez types – I had him marginally ahead today, but ask me tomorrow and it’d probably be different.

Had a good look at him a while back and, while an outstanding fighter, I didn't think his record stacked up to the aforementioned duo (as you say, those Harada defeats hurt him). I've read he was a perfect fighting machine and the closest thing to Robinson seen since the great man retired but I tend to place more emphasis on record and great performances (and in particular level of opposition). Maybe I'm doing him down a bit but Hagler's great championship reign and Chavez's unbeaten patch (during which he was arguably the best ever at both super feather and light welter) sway it for me.

The point I am making is for a good few years before the Jones win and every year since the same conditions have existed (day before weigh ins, multiple belts, god awful heavies) and the feat wasn't done previously and has not been done since.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Since the WBO started we've had Chagaev, Liakovich, Rahman, Ibragimov, Maskaev, Byrd, Hide, Akinwande and Bentt all holding world titles at Heavyweight, none of them have lost their titles to a Light Heavyweight let alone a Middleweight.

How many of them fought former middleweights when they held their tin pot belt?

Was it opportunistic. Almost certainly. Was Ruiz a weak champion? Undoubtedly. Despite the klits, have their been countless crap champions since day before weigh-ins came in? Yep... As hammer has listed.

Besides I thought wlad was rubbish anyway... So what then if he's 6'5. Size didn't stop carnera, or valuev from losing/struggling with relative dwarves.

It may be a caveated achievement but it's still an achievement that's not been repeated.

Whilst I appreciate you generally supporting my point Milky, don't do it by dissing Da Preem. Even I have my limits.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Since the WBO started we've had Chagaev, Liakovich, Rahman, Ibragimov, Maskaev, Byrd, Hide, Akinwande and Bentt all holding world titles at Heavyweight, none of them have lost their titles to a Light Heavyweight let alone a Middleweight.

How many of them fought former middleweights when they held their tin pot belt?

None which sort of emphasises quite how remarkable Jones' feat actually was, it's so easy to do that nobody else has attempted to do it clean.

Rowley wrote:The point I am making is for a good few years before the Jones win and every year since the same conditions have existed (day before weigh ins, multiple belts, god awful heavies) and the feat wasn't done previously and has not been done since.

There are reasons for that beyond Jones simply being a great talent.

Moorer for arguments sake, wasnt a million miles off Jones and had a far more accomplished stint at heavyweight.

There isnt much appeal for a good light heavyweight to move up to heavyweight unless they feel they have a real chance of being a top heavyweight. Jones never really thought that. He saw the chance to do a smash and grab on a really bang average heavyweight title holder and grabbed it.

Rowley wrote:The point I am making is for a good few years before the Jones win and every year since the same conditions have existed (day before weigh ins, multiple belts, god awful heavies) and the feat wasn't done previously and has not been done since.

It was very definitely a case of right place, right time for Jones. If I recall, he backed out of facing a comebacking, overweight, post-diabetic coma Buster Douglas at the last minute for fear he'd be permanently maimed.

Toney fought former genuine heavyweight champ Hasim Rahman to a draw and dropped a SD to one time WBC paper champ Sam Peter. There's not much between that and what Jones did against Ruiz.

hazharrison wrote:

Rowley wrote:The point I am making is for a good few years before the Jones win and every year since the same conditions have existed (day before weigh ins, multiple belts, god awful heavies) and the feat wasn't done previously and has not been done since.

It was very definitely a case of right place, right time for Jones. If I recall, he backed out of facing a comebacking, overweight, post-diabetic coma Buster Douglas at the last minute for fear he'd be permanently maimed.

Toney fought former genuine heavyweight champ Hasim Rahman to a draw and dropped a SD to one time WBC paper champ Sam Peter. There's not much between that and what Jones did against Ruiz.

Except not doing the most important bit and actually winning.

milkyboy wrote:Was it opportunistic. Almost certainly. Was Ruiz a weak champion? Undoubtedly. Despite the klits, have their been countless crap champions since day before weigh-ins came in? Yep... As hammer has listed.

Besides I thought wlad was rubbish anyway... So what then if he's 6'5. Size didn't stop carnera, or valuev from losing/struggling with relative dwarves.

It may be a caveated achievement but it's still an achievement that's not been repeated.

Wlad isn't a great heavyweight but he's a good one and he'd have been far too good for someone even as talented as Jones.

The story behind how Ruiz came by his paper belt is ridiculous - even by boxing' standards.

In signing to face Holyfield in their rematch, Lewis had to - at Don King's behest - agree to face Akinwande (WBA number one) in his first defence. Akinwande went down with Hepatitis and so Lewis signed to face his number one contender Michael Grant (who many across the pond were tipping to be the guy to usurp him).

As the WBA had no replacement for Henry, they initially sanctioned the Grant fight, only for King to "put pressure" on them to change tack and strip Lewis for not fighting his next best man in Ruiz (Lewis argued in court that Ruiz wasn't fit and proper to even be recognised as a top contender).

So that's how Ruiz vs Holyfield came about (Holy was shot at this point and had also signed with King).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Rowley wrote:The point I am making is for a good few years before the Jones win and every year since the same conditions have existed (day before weigh ins, multiple belts, god awful heavies) and the feat wasn't done previously and has not been done since.

It was very definitely a case of right place, right time for Jones. If I recall, he backed out of facing a comebacking, overweight, post-diabetic coma Buster Douglas at the last minute for fear he'd be permanently maimed.

Toney fought former genuine heavyweight champ Hasim Rahman to a draw and dropped a SD to one time WBC paper champ Sam Peter. There's not much between that and what Jones did against Ruiz.

Except not doing the most important bit and actually winning.

Which is why I said it wasn't far off rather than equal to Roy's feat. One point and he'd have been WBC paper champ.

A one round swing and Larry Holmes beats Spinks first time around and equals Marciano's 49-0, it didn't happen like that though.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A one round swing and Larry Holmes beats Spinks first time around and equals Marciano's 49-0, it didn't happen like that though.

If we're playing world championship pedantry: had Holmes won an extra point he'd have been 48-1. Toney would have been a paper champ.

None of which has anything to do with the debate over whether the Ruiz win was underrated/overrated.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A one round swing and Larry Holmes beats Spinks first time around and equals Marciano's 49-0, it didn't happen like that though.

If we're playing world championship pedantry: had Holmes won an extra point he'd have been 48-1. Toney would have been a paper champ.

None of which has anything to do with the debate over whether the Ruiz win was underrated/overrated.

Being pedantic I quite clearly stated one round swing so he'd have won the fight.

Nothing you've said has been to debate the Ruiz win, it's just ifs and buts, Jones is one of only two men to win titles at Middleweight and Heavyweight, that is an irrefutable fact.

To put the win in context you need to look past the alphabet titles and weight divisions which give the acheivement its panache. This stuff is mostly red herring. To put things on an even footing over boxing history, Jones was a essentially a light heavyweight and Ruiz wasnt anything more than an ok heavyweight contender. There are numerous light heavyweights over history well capable of beating an ordinary heavyweight like Ruiz. In the past many probably did, it just doesnt have all the alphabet razmatazz.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A one round swing and Larry Holmes beats Spinks first time around and equals Marciano's 49-0, it didn't happen like that though.

If we're playing world championship pedantry: had Holmes won an extra point he'd have been 48-1. Toney would have been a paper champ.

None of which has anything to do with the debate over whether the Ruiz win was underrated/overrated.

Being pedantic I quite clearly stated one round swing so he'd have won the fight.

Nothing you've said has been to debate the Ruiz win, it's just ifs and buts, Jones is one of only two men to win titles at Middleweight and Heavyweight, that is an irrefutable fact.

And a couple of us have attempted to put that into context. Only Fitz managed to win genuine championships in both divisions. The heavyweight title Jones won was worth about as much as the IBU and IBA titles Toney secured against Fres Oquendo and Bobby Gunn (i.e. not a lot).

The very same people who proclaim Duran's win over Barkley to be a great one are the same disregarding Jones' win over Ruiz, neither of them beat a true world class champion but both created a little of history in doing so.

catchweight wrote:To put the win in context you need to look past the alphabet titles and weight divisions which give the acheivement its panache. This stuff is mostly red herring. To put things on an even footing over boxing history, Jones was a essentially a light heavyweight and Ruiz wasnt anything more than an ok heavyweight contender. There are numerous light heavyweights over history well capable of beating an ordinary heavyweight like Ruiz. In the past many probably did, it just doesnt have all the alphabet razmatazz.

I agree. Ez Charles beating Burley and becoming a contender at 160 before his career was interrupted (and then winning the bonafide heavyweight crown down the road) holds more substance than the ABC jazz.

Ezzard Charles, is a genuine top pound for pound all time great... So you won't find many dissenting voices about his achievements. And the fact that his is the one historical boxing biography you've read is just a Brucey bonus haz;)

As for putting the Ruiz win into context, you're putting it into context with people who already have it in context, who know what day before weigh-ins mean, who know who John Ruiz is and his capabilities as a fighter and what his belt meant.

They just happen to think it's still a worthwhile achievement, and harder to do than you and catchy think. All just opinions.

milkyboy wrote:Ezzard Charles, is a genuine top pound for pound all time great... So you won't find many dissenting voices about his achievements. And the fact that his is the one historical boxing biography you've read is just a Brucey bonus haz;)

As for putting the Ruiz win into context, you're putting it into context with people who already have it in context, who know what day before weigh-ins mean, who know who John Ruiz is and his capabilities as a fighter and what his belt meant.

They just happen to think it's still a worthwhile achievement, and harder to do than you and catchy think. All just opinions.

I stopped reading when I started posting on here again. It only gets you into trouble citing facts and whatnot. Even though my bookcase looks like a Rowley Xmas stocking I haven't read any of them - honest. In 606 land everyone has the jump on esteemed writers, biographers and experts anyway!

And thanks for summarising the debate for me (I was following it all but thanks anyway - you've been a great help here!).

milkyboy wrote:Ezzard Charles, is a genuine top pound for pound all time great... So you won't find many dissenting voices about his achievements. And the fact that his is the one historical boxing biography you've read is just a Brucey bonus haz;)

As for putting the Ruiz win into context, you're putting it into context with people who already have it in context, who know what day before weigh-ins mean, who know who John Ruiz is and his capabilities as a fighter and what his belt meant.

They just happen to think it's still a worthwhile achievement, and harder to do than you and catchy think. All just opinions.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Ezzard Charles, is a genuine top pound for pound all time great... So you won't find many dissenting voices about his achievements. And the fact that his is the one historical boxing biography you've read is just a Brucey bonus haz;)

As for putting the Ruiz win into context, you're putting it into context with people who already have it in context, who know what day before weigh-ins mean, who know who John Ruiz is and his capabilities as a fighter and what his belt meant.

They just happen to think it's still a worthwhile achievement, and harder to do than you and catchy think. All just opinions.

"You've got a friend in me...."

You were following the debate haz? You hide it so well:D

People on here love facts and we love it even more when opinions are presented as them.

We love esteemed writers, as long as the esteemed writers agree with our opinions.

Bob Mee's opinion is fact.

I dont think it does get particularly well framed in context in my experience, especially when the argument is based around statements like it has only ever been acheived twice followed by a "why has it ony been done twice" closed question. There are reasons if people are willing to discuss them. I think the whole middle to heavyweight champion thing is extremely misleading about the genuine merits of what at the time was a bookies favourite Roy Jones taking on an ordinary heavyweight in Ruiz. I also think the modern weigh in rules is one of the most understated changes (and problems) in boxing now. Its fair less obvious than the numerous and worthless titles but in my opinion it is far more damaging (precisely because its less obvious). Its not an "easy" accomplishment, but its a lot less momentous than the history that accompanies it. But thats because I look at it as essentially a quality light heavyweight beating an average heavyweight. Good but not all that unique in the grand scheme of things. Il take or leave the alphabet titles that turn it from a good win into a historical unique achievement. I rate Jones as a quality talent but I dont think that win over Ruiz is a particularly big factor in that as there have been better examples of light heavyweights stepping up and beating better big men. If boxing had consistently had the same structure as in place now, and champions as poor as Ruiz at heavyweight then I think it would have happened pretty frequently to tell you the truth.

milkyboy wrote:You were following the debate haz? You hide it so well:D

People on here love facts and we love it even more when opinions are presented as them.

We love esteemed writers, as long as the esteemed writers agree with our opinions.

Here you go again you chippy little fella.

If I present an opinion and use facts to back it, that isn't presenting opinion as fact. It's building an argument. In addition, presenting a respected source to back an opinion isn't being biased towards a particular writer. You're quite free to present a contrasting opinion backed by an alternative source (especially as you're so well read).

Otherwise we're stuck with one person saying: I think this. And the usual cranks on the board merely saying: That's rubbish.

Cracking.

catchweight wrote:I dont think it does get particularly well framed in context in my experience, especially when the argument is based around statements like it has only ever been acheived twice followed by a "why has it ony been done twice" closed question. There are reasons if people are willing to discuss them. I think the whole middle to heavyweight champion thing is extremely misleading about the genuine merits of what at the time was a bookies favourite Roy Jones taking on an ordinary heavyweight in Ruiz. I also think the modern weigh in rules is one of the most understated changes (and problems) in boxing now. Its fair less obvious than the numerous and worthless titles but in my opinion it is far more damaging (precisely because its less obvious). Its not an "easy" accomplishment, but its a lot less momentous than the history that accompanies it. But thats because I look at it as essentially a quality light heavyweight beating an average heavyweight. Good but not all that unique in the grand scheme of things. Il take or leave the alphabet titles that turn it from a good win into a historical unique achievement. I rate Jones as a quality talent but I dont think that win over Ruiz is a particularly big factor in that as there have been better examples of light heavyweights stepping up and beating better big men. If boxing had consistently had the same structure as in place now, and champions as poor as Ruiz at heavyweight then I think it would have happened pretty frequently to tell you the truth.

That's where I am with it. To tell the truth, when evaluating Jones as a fighter, I don't place much emphasis on the Ruiz win. Good performance but he was at his very best at 168.

catchweight wrote:I dont think it does get particularly well framed in context in my experience, especially when the argument is based around statements like it has only ever been acheived twice followed by a "why has it ony been done twice" closed question. There are reasons if people are willing to discuss them. I think the whole middle to heavyweight champion thing is extremely misleading about the genuine merits of what at the time was a bookies favourite Roy Jones taking on an ordinary heavyweight in Ruiz. I also think the modern weigh in rules is one of the most understated changes (and problems) in boxing now. Its fair less obvious than the numerous and worthless titles but in my opinion it is far more damaging (precisely because its less obvious). Its not an "easy" accomplishment, but its a lot less momentous than the history that accompanies it. But thats because I look at it as essentially a quality light heavyweight beating an average heavyweight. Good but not all that unique in the grand scheme of things. Il take or leave the alphabet titles that turn it from a good win into a historical unique achievement. I rate Jones as a quality talent but I dont think that win over Ruiz is a particularly big factor in that as there have been better examples of light heavyweights stepping up and beating better big men. If boxing had consistently had the same structure as in place now, and champions as poor as Ruiz at heavyweight then I think it would have happened pretty frequently to tell you the truth.

I don't necessarily disagree that had conditions been the same it may have happened more frequently, but even allowing for that the conditions that facilitated Jones doing it have existed for some 30 years give or take and nobody else has done likewise and there are no reasons to think that is likely to change soon. That suggests to me even allowing for all the assistance offered to modern fighters it's still a little tricky.

I go back and forward on how good an achievement it is by Jones. A lot is being said about him being a natural Light Heavyweight but Jones best performances were below Light Heavyweight where he did spend over 5 years. There have been plenty rubbish alphabet champions since Ruiz that no middleweights were calling out.

Just want to throw out there a potential fight and see how people think it would have gone. Had Charles Martin not decided to fight Anthony Joshua but instead was allowed to defend his paper title against either Ward or Kovalev, would either of these two have beaten him or would the bigger but clearly less skillful man have come through?

How many middleweights have become light heavyweight champs in recent years that had big enough names to challenge a heavyweight belt holder? Jones, Hopkins and who else? I just ask because I keep reading about how no-one else has done what Jones did.

Interesting point that Atila, would say Anthony Joshua be able to pick Ward or Kovalev for a voluntary defence as they have no history at the weight?

Jones wasnt calling out heavyweights when he was at middleweight.

He fought relatively briefly at middleweight, which he was able to make thanks to a punishing weight loss regime, lengthy re-hydration time limits and "ripped fuel" and the other such supplements he loaded up on. When he did fight at middleweight he weighed what would historiclly have been a light heavyweight when he actually got into the the ring to box.

For the bulk of his career he fought in the light heavyweight division (where he weighed in excess of 180lbs come fight night). The Ruiz fight was a nice opportunity for him to create this bit of history against a very weak heavyweight when there were hardly any appealing light heavyweight fights for him and he was on a run of facing mismatched opponents that everyone was losing interest in. At that stage in his career he was weighing about 185lbs when boxed. Nothing remotely like a middleweight and in historical terms closer to heavyweight. But this is how muddied the divisions have become now. You dont know what your getting when you factor in the weigh in rules combined with numerous divisions.

There havent been any great or even very many good light heavyweights since Jones but the likes of Toney and Adamek have moved up and been competitve against mediocre heavyweights. Toney might have busted for doping a few times but he clearly was in horrendous shape and doing hardly any training.

I dont think theres much of an incentive for good light heavyweight who can be the top man in his own division he comfortable in to jump up to heavyweight simply to capture a portion of a title against an ordinary heavyweight in a division they will be just a fringe fighter in. For Jones it was different because it created history but he jumped back down pretty sharpish rather than ply his trade there. Other light heavyweights have gone up and had a crack at the bonafide heavyweight champion and pulled it off which I think is a far greater accomplishement than the "middle to heavyweight" titles that Jones did.

Whilst I wouldn't argue with much of that catchy it doesn't alter the fact that the boiling down process just moves the weight classes... Light heavies are now middles, cruisers are light heavies, heavies are cruisers and the guys fighting at heavy are way bigger than they used to be.

Even with the prep time, and a carefully selected 'small' heavy, Jones still gave north of 30 lbs away to ruiz. It's more than spinks gave to Holmes and moorer might have been a light heavy with day before weigh-ins in his early 20's but he was 6'2 and c210lbs as a heavy.

Both those guys fought tougher challenges than Johnny Ruiz but not many light heavies have successfully campaigned at heavy even in the days when your typical heavy was south of 200lbs. Fitz, Charles... Conn had a great go at Louis, Moore at marciano. Plenty of very good ones got splattered trying. The successful ones are still few and far between.

With respect to no-one else trying since? Well firstly it was clearly opportunistic from Jones, but then it would take a special talent for the public to buy it. As you point out, no one significant has been around to try. That's being used as a negative in this argument... Ie others could do it but don't get the chance...but it's kind of the point... the reality is no-one would give credence to Darren Barker fighting klitschko. It's only ever going to be credible if the guy in question is perceived as special and has a chance. The fact that people arent good enough to try is why it doesn't happen. If ward shuts down kovalev, people might buy say ward povotkin For example... Or golovkin.

Perhaps the way to look at it, is that it wasn't a surprise Jones beat a poor heavy belt holder, because of his dominance at the lower weights gave it credibility. It's maybe a reflection of his talent that he got the chance more than the best example of his talent in getting the win. It will always take a certain set of circumstances for it to happen... 

I don't think anyone has picked it as the the defining point of Jones career. I'd agree that Hopkins and Toney are the standouts on his resume... The Ruiz win is certainly not something to completely dismiss though in my opinion.